If I see that crappy direct link to that one post of yours again GT I am going to have to put you on ignore for being insane like I had to do with member TWO PACK. There were no WMDs, your heroes Bush and Rumsfeld even admitted so, plus it is commonly known now that they didn't exist so just admit it for Christs sake. Stop trying to defend a lie.
I honestly can't believe there are still people (not just here on DP) who think the Iraq war was a good idea or successful endeavor. Most of the people I know who originally supported Bush and this insane war without a plan, now think that it's a MISERABLE FAILURE. A terrible mistake. And a horrible situation with no chance for "victory". Then again, most of the people I know are somewhat sane and rational.
Iraqs nuclear program was in the proverbial stone age, they were a good 100 away years from making a nuke.
Yeah, facts frustrate you, don't they? Hell, if I knew that's all it would take to have the honor of your "ignore" list, I'd have posted them more often. Here: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 Take your own advice, stop trying to perpetuate a lie. Here's a few more! http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196
Ok time for education people. Whoever thinks saddam and al queda were in league knows nothing about the ideology of the 2. Saddam was a bathist. Bathists believe that all arab countries should unite to form one arab country. Very simple, and bathists didnt care whether u were muslim or christian, a bathists was equal in each others eyes regardless of their religious beliefs. Al quaeda on the other hand is an islamic extremist group. Now that this has been laid to rest we can all reasonably assume that the 2 HATEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD each other . This is like saying america and the ex soviet union were going to get together and be merry and form one super country. Its a laugher. End of story, the 2 were never in league cause they hated each other and opposed each other. Now you can bring government info saying there might have been a connection or some silly shred of info but to know the truth you have to get to know the 2 ideologies and what they believed in and stood for. Ignorance and a few government intelligence links wont do it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/five-civil-questions-for-_b_21452.html My first question is this: did Sen. McCain ever make this case in the build up to war in 2002 and 2003--that is, that it was irrelevant whether or not Saddam had or would ever get WMD? 2. The main reason Sen. McCain has given for his belief it was right to invade Iraq in the absence of WMD is Saddam's brutality against Iraqis, which he's compared to Auschwitz and Treblinka. Saddam's worst actions against his own people took place during the eighties before the invasion of Kuwait, when he was an ally of the United States. Sen. McCain was elected to Congress in 1982, and then to the Senate in 1986. Did Sen. McCain speak out about Saddam's most horrible crimes during this period--that is, while they were actually in progress? 3. The Reagan and first Bush administrations gave Saddam critical financial, political, and strategic support, even though they knew he was using chemical weapons against Iranians and his own people. In April, 1990, Republican Senator Alan Simpson (a close friend of Dick Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense) met with Saddam and told him his problem lay "with the Western media and not with the U.S. government." Sen. Simpson also called the media "haughty and pampered." Just four weeks before this meeting, Saddam had executed Farzad Bazoft, a journalist with the British paper The Observer. Again, Sen. McCain has compared Saddam's actions to those of Hitler. What would he say about politicians who offered comparable support to Hitler during the Holocaust? Does he believe the same should be said about Reagan, Bush Sr., and Simpson? 4. In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Hussein Kamel defected from Iraq to Jordan. Kamel had supervised Iraq's WMD programs before the Gulf War in 1991. After his defection, Kamel told the CIA that Iraq had not been honest about its pre-Gulf War programs. However, he also told us Iraq had no remaining WMD and that its nuclear weapons program had ended four years previously. We now know everything Kamel said was accurate. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Powell all referred to Kamel in the build up to war. However, none of them told Americans that Kamel said Iraq had nothing. Why does Sen. McCain believe Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell all left this out? Also, Sen. McCain served on the commission investigating the intelligence failure regarding WMD and Iraq. The commission's report mentions Kamel repeatedly, but never refers to his statements that Iraq was disarmed. Why does the report fail to mention this? 5. My last question has to do with domestic policy. Sen. McCain is a vocal supporter of President Bush's proposals to privatize Social Security. While touring the country speaking about Social Security with President Bush last year, Sen. McCain made many statements such as this one: "Some of our friends, who are opposing this idea, say, 'Oh, you don't have to worry until 2042.' We wait until 2042, when we stop paying people Social Security?" This is not accurate. There will never be a time when the government simply stops paying people Social Security. In fact, according to the projections of the Social Security Administration (to which Sen. McCain was referring), in 2042 Social Security will with no changes be able to pay recipients more than retirees receive today. The only question is whether without changes Social Security will be able to pay benefits even higher than that. This is one of the most basic facts there is about the Social Security debate. With all respect, it's certainly something a senator should be expected to know, particularly if he's proposing significant alterations to the program. Was Sen. McCain unaware what he was saying was false? If so, and he genuinely didn't know this basic aspect of how Social Security functions, will he apologize for not being informed before speaking out so strongly on this issue? Thanks in advance to both you and Sen. McCain for addressing these questions. Again, I emphasize my genuine commitment to civil dialogue. I look forward to your response.
OBVIOUSLY, because we ALL know that we REALLY went into Iraq for Oil. :???: Your views and friends then are pathetic You got that right - "What!? They don't like me? Send them to the acid pits!" - acid baths for people that disagreed with him! What a kind person...